Issue 2: The Future of the Life Estates and the Expired Use and Occupancy Properties

At the creation of the National Lakeshore, the Apostle Islands were dotted with private holdings: not just vacation cabins, but fishing camps, and sites that once had been logging camps or farmsteads. Many of these possessed substantial historic significance, but the NPS, for the most part, failed to recognize their importance, and proceeded on a willy-nilly course of island-cleansing: obliterating, or allowing to decay, several sites that almost certainly possessed National Register-level significance. Among the examples:

• The oldest fishing cabins on South Twin Island were demolished in the 1970s without assessment of their historic significance.

• Homes belonging to original inhabitants of Sand Island’s East Bay settlement were burned in the 1980s and 1990s.

• The major buildings of Outer Island’s Lullabye Logging Camp remained standing until the early 1990s, but were subsequently allowed to collapse.

• The Herring King cottage on Sand Island- an absolutely unique structure made from the hull of a wrecked boat- was allowed to collapse.

"Herring King Cottage," Sand Island, 1977

"Herring King Cottage," Sand Island, 2003

There are only a handful of use-and-occupancies remaining in the National Lakeshore. All but a few have acknowledged historic significance:

• The Shaw-Hill Farm and Sevona Cottage on Sand Island are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

• The entire Rocky Island settlement has been nominated for National Register historic district status.

• The West Bay Club on Sand Island has been determined eligible for the National Register by the Wisconsin State Historical Society.

• The Hansen Homestead on Sand Island has been called "the best-preserved Scandinavian farmstead in the Lake Superior region" by a recognized expert in the field.

• At Shaw Point on Sand Island, the home of controversial Indian Agent Samuel Campbell, and the Camp Stella complex of Governor Sam Fifield are both almost certainly eligible for National Register designation.

…and so on. Decisions made regarding these and the other remaining use-and-occupancies represent the park’s last opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Ranger at burning cabin, c.1990

Unfortunately, the options presented here for the future of the use-and-occupancies are somewhat confusing. Options one and two do not appear, in the wording presented, to offer complete, alternative approaches. Option one makes no mention of proposed treatment for historically significant sites, merely stating that (the very few remaining) properties found not significant  would be removed or left to molder. Option two is unclear whether it makes reference to the treatment of properties judged to be lacking significance.

In any event, neither option provides sufficient detail to assess the merits of its approach. While option two lays out a generalized approach to the treatment of historic properties, the proposal is so conditional and handicapped by qualifiers -- "if a structure were rehabilitated," "public uses of rehabilitated properties could range" -- that it really offers little basis for evaluation.

Option three, however, provides enough detail to show that it is clearly unwise. The idea that the park might decide to preserve and interpret only one locale runs directly counter to the very foundation principles of historic preservation and interpretation. Doing so would inevitably provide the visitor a distorted picture of the archipelago's history, disproportionately emphasizing the themes illustrated by the chosen site and downgrading those not present.

Moreover, this option unquestionably violates the expressed intent of Congress in setting the boundaries of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Congress specifically excluded several portions of the park from the Wilderness due to their high level of historically significant sites, and their potential for preserving and interpreting the human history of the islands. These exclusions included all of Sand, Long, and Basswood Islands, and the historic fishing settlement on Rocky Island. It is clear that Congress intended all, not some, of these to be managed in a manner that would preserve their cultural values.

Continue to: Issue Three- Options For the
Management of the Nonwilderness Areas

Back to Table Of Contents

Home

The Document Under Review

Options For Future Management
(PDF format; 2.8 Mb)